Search Climate Insights Directory

The compendium details the legal arguments presented from December 2 to December 13, 2024, at the ICJ. It highlights a fundamental divide between climate-vulnerable nations and several high-emitting States. Vulnerable nations, including many Small Island Developing States (SIDS), argue for a 'harmonious interpretation' of international law, asserting that obligations to prevent transboundary harm and protect human rights exist independently of and complement the Paris Agreement. They demand accountability for historical emissions and full reparations, including debt cancellation. Conversely, a minority of high-emitting States, such as the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, argue that the UN climate treaty regime (UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement) is the exclusive source of State obligations, seeking to limit liability and reject the applicability of customary international law or human rights law to climate mitigation.

The report examines the increasing integration of climate change into the monitoring work of UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies, highlighting a rise in climate-related recommendations to States in 2023. It specifically analyzes the role of these bodies in addressing fossil fuel phase-outs, the right to a healthy environment, loss and damage, and the rights of future generations, while identifying gaps in the scrutiny of carbon markets and international climate finance.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement do not exhaustively define State obligations regarding climate change. Instead, States are bound by concurrent duties under customary international law (such as the prevention of transboundary harm), human rights law, and the law of State responsibility. CIEL argues that the cumulative emission of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil fuels, constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Consequently, responsible States—particularly industrialized nations—must cease their destructive conduct and provide full reparation for material and moral injuries. The submission emphasizes that these obligations extend to future generations, grounded in the principle of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle, which mandates prioritizing proven emission reductions over speculative technologies.

The document asserts that high-emitting States have breached international obligations to prevent significant transboundary harm and protect human rights by allowing cumulative greenhouse gas emissions to degrade the global climate system. It argues that these breaches constitute internationally wrongful acts under the law of State responsibility, requiring States to cease wrongful conduct and provide full reparation—including restitution, compensation, and satisfaction—for material and moral injuries. The memorandum emphasizes that international climate agreements like the Paris Agreement do not preclude these reparations and suggests that the burden of proof for causation should shift to responsible States given the available attribution science.

The document asserts that international law provides no basis to restrict State climate obligations to present generations. It argues that the rights of future generations are rooted in the UN Charter, various international environmental agreements, and the jurisprudence of the ICJ and other international bodies. The submission emphasizes that the principles of prevention and precaution require States to act now to avoid irreversible climate harm and warns against relying on speculative future technologies to meet mitigation targets. It includes the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations, which provide a framework for the obligations of States and non-State actors to ensure intergenerational justice.

Ten youths challenged the State of Brandenburg for failing to set climate protection goals and emission reduction paths, arguing this violated German constitutional law and endangered future generations. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the claims on 18 January 2022, ruling that it was not possible to determine the extent of the state legislature's power to prevent future rights violations, noting a lack of federal specifications on state-level emission budgets and the limited influence of states in climate protection areas managed by the federal government.

Ten youth plaintiffs challenged the State of Bavaria's climate legislation, arguing that inadequate greenhouse gas reduction pathways violated their constitutional rights to freedom, life, and physical integrity. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany rejected the claims on 18 January 2022, ruling that it was not possible to determine the specific extent of the state legislature's power to prevent future rights violations, partly because the federal government had not provided specific requirements for state-level emission reductions.

The document outlines how to apply a human rights-based approach (HRBA) to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), emphasizing the distinction between duty bearers and rights holders. It provides detailed guidance on identifying vulnerable groups—including Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, and environmental human rights defenders—and integrating principles of equity, participation, and access to justice into biodiversity planning, financing, and monitoring. The guide specifically maps the 23 GBF Targets to human rights actions, advocating for the recognition of traditional territories, the implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and the adoption of gender-responsive policies to ensure that biodiversity conservation does not lead to human rights violations.

The document argues that climate change is a human rights crisis driven by a small number of 'Carbon Majors' in the fossil fuel and agroindustrial sectors. It asserts that States have a duty under the American Convention on Human Rights to regulate these entities, halt fossil fuel expansion, and ensure reparations for affected communities. It further argues that business enterprises have an independent obligation to respect human rights, which includes conducting due diligence across their entire value chain and ceasing deceptive 'climate-washing' practices.

The brief provides scientific and legal arguments to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, asserting that the climate emergency constitutes a threat to fundamental human rights. It emphasizes that States have a positive obligation to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, specifically the 1.5°C target. The document argues that this duty includes regulating 'Carbon Majors' and avoiding 'false solutions' like carbon offsetting and unproven geoengineering, which may undermine genuine decarbonization. It concludes that failure to take effective, science-based action violates the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment, particularly for marginalized groups and future generations.

The document critiques the use of temporary carbon storage as a climate solution, asserting that unless carbon is stored for significantly more than a century, it cannot physically offset the permanent impact of fossil fuel emissions. It argues that such schemes are often driven by economic interests seeking to avoid emission reductions and that they unfairly burden future generations with the risk of carbon release. The author calls for policymakers, particularly in the European Union, to prohibit temporary storage as carbon offsets and establish minimum durability requirements.

The document synthesizes expert warnings that geoengineering technologies, including carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation modification (SRM), pose unprecedented risks to human rights and may act as a 'moral hazard' by delaying the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. It highlights that these technologies are largely unproven and unfeasible at scale, with potential for disproportionate harm to Indigenous Peoples, rural communities, and future generations. The brief advocates for a rights-based approach to climate action that prioritizes immediate emissions reductions and the application of the precautionary principle, suggesting that some high-risk activities, such as stratospheric aerosol injection, may warrant a complete ban.

The document outlines recommendations for a proposed EU legislative framework for a sustainable food system, emphasizing the need for binding targets, corporate due diligence, and mandatory sustainable public procurement to address the food system's contributions to climate change and biodiversity loss.

The brief submitted by CIEL and Greenpeace International asserts that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS. It argues that States have a legal duty to prevent, reduce, and control these emissions to protect and preserve the marine environment, specifically by limiting warming to 1.5°C. The authors contend that this duty requires an immediate halt to new fossil fuel projects, a transition to non-fossil fuel power by mid-century, and the implementation of adaptation measures. The brief emphasizes that ITLOS should interpret UNCLOS harmoniously with international human rights law and the best available science, applying principles such as the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC-NC).

The report details CAPE's 2023 efforts to reduce toxic exposures in Canada, highlighting the passage of Bill S-5 to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the launch of the Place-Based Power Project focusing on extraction impacts in Northern B.C., Alberta, and the Northwest Territories.

The 2022 activities of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) show a sustained focus on climate change, with references appearing in 25 out of 33 State review processes. The Committee emphasized adaptation, mitigation, and the empowerment of children in policymaking, while specifically calling out the need for more ambitious emission reductions in developed nations like Germany. A significant portion of the CRC's work focused on the accountability of private actors in fossil fuel production and the extraterritorial obligations of States to protect children's rights abroad. Furthermore, the CRC developed a draft General Comment No. 26, which links a safe climate to the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment and advocates for the phasing out of fossil fuels.

The document outlines a roadmap for Indonesia to transition to a low-carbon economy without leaving vulnerable workers and communities behind. It defines the dimensions of just transition—procedural, distributive, and restorative—and provides a set of principles and a planning checklist. The guide analyses Indonesia's current policy landscape, highlighting the dominance of the energy sector in transition discussions and the need for a more cross-sectoral approach. It also presents international case studies from Germany, Canada, Sweden, the USA, and Australia to illustrate different leadership models and outcomes. Key recommendations include establishing a national governing body, creating a centralised database of affected workers, and enhancing social dialogue to ensure inclusive decision-making.

The document argues that while Bill S-5 is a positive step toward modernizing CEPA, it requires further amendments to ensure the right to a healthy environment is robustly implemented and that toxic substance assessments and risk management are transparent and timely. Key recommendations include establishing mandatory labelling for hazardous consumer products, setting strict timelines for substance assessments, and shifting the burden of proof for confidentiality claims to the requesting party.

The document highlights the critical role of youth activists in addressing the climate and economic crises, emphasizing that the burden of action should not fall on a single generation. It provides examples of youth-led initiatives, including students proposing climate legislation in Indiana, the global #FridaysForFuture movement, and legal challenges filed by young people in Portugal and Peru against government inaction regarding emissions and deforestation.

The document critiques the draft National Land Policy of Mozambique for its limited scope, lack of clarity on land tenure, and failure to integrate climate change strategies and human rights protections. It advocates for the adoption of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), stronger protections for customary land rights, and a coordinated inter-sectoral approach to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from the oil and gas industry. The authors emphasize the need for gender equality in land access and the establishment of clear mechanisms to combat corruption and land grabbing.